On June 16, 2022, the latest amendment of Vietnam’s Intellectual Property Law was finally ratified with the consent of 95.58% of the members of the National Assembly. The amendment has received much attention from not only IP rights holders but also law enforcement authorities, as changes have been made in respect of both IP ownership and enforcement. Notably, under the amended IP Law, Vietnam will recognize sound marks, which shows the country’s efforts to comply with international treaties and agreements to which it is a party, such as the EVFTA and CPTPP. Although there will be challenges in protecting sound marks, this adoption hopefully will provide IP rights owners with one more useful type of protection for their intellectual assets in the developing era of technology. Regarding copyright, the criteria for co-authorship have been clarified with more details regarding the number of authors (from two authors and above), the contribution of the authors, the intent of the authors, etc. These criteria are similar to other legal systems such as those of the U.K. or U.S. As the definition of co-author plays an important role in determining the ownership of the work, this change promises a better scenario with fewer disputes concerning the ownership of collaborative works. Unsurprisingly, the National Assembly agreed to keep administrative sanctions as one of the measures to deal with IP infringement. This is in contrast to one of the previous drafts of the amended law in which administrative sanctions were no longer listed as a way to protect IP rights. This removal had received strong negative feedback from many scholars and legal practitioners, who argued from the practical aspect that the civil litigation process often takes longer and has higher costs than administrative sanctions and, thus, would discourage owners from protecting their rights. Further, IP

On December 30, 2021, Vietnam’s Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) issued Decree No. 126/2021/ND-CP (Decree 126) amending several provisions of Decree No. 99/2013/ND-CP of the government dated August 29, 2013 (Decree 99), which is the primary legislation on the sanctioning of administrative violations in industrial property. Decree 126 took near-immediate effect with the new year on January 1, 2022. While the new decree offers some clear improvements that will help enforcement authorities and practitioners to deal with the infringement of industrial property rights, it has some notable shortcomings compared to a draft version of the decree that was circulated in mid-2021 Key Changes in Decree 126 While Decree 126 retains most of the regulations in Decree 99, it introduces some significant changes such as expanding the scope of regulation, increasing the level of administrative fines, and providing more specific details on violations as well as remedies. First, Decree 126 has expanded the scope of its coverage under Article 1, and added a new sub-article explicitly listing the entities that are subject to administrative sanctions, such as companies, IP agencies, and IP examiners. This new provision allows the enforcement authorities to easily detect and apply sanctions to infringers. Decree 126 has also expanded the seizure authority in many provisions. Under the previous regulations, the authorities could only confiscate material evidence and means used in the commission of administrative violations when the total value of such materials did not exceed the amount of the fine for the violation. Under Decree 126, the total value of confiscated materials may be up to twice the set fine amount. This should have a noticeable impact on enforcement efforts. While some of the provisions in Decree 99 are somewhat vague and, as a result, difficult to apply, Decree 126 has made an improvement by

Intellectual property experts from Tilleke & Gibbins were engaged by ARISE+ IPR, a regional support program funded by the European Union and implemented by the European Intellectual Property Office, to craft a series of IP enforcement guides for Southeast Asian countries, aimed at raising local awareness of the importance of IP protection. The five-year, EUR 5.5 million ARISE+ IPR program supports regional integration through IP cooperation and aims to upgrade national IP systems for creation, protection, utilization, administration, and enforcement to be in line with international best practices and standards and the strategic objectives of the ASEAN Intellectual Property Rights Action Plan 2016-2025. The guides were developed by Tilleke & Gibbins’ lawyers in cooperation with the IP offices of each participating country, and cover issues related to trademarks, industrial designs, and geographical indications. Each guide was produced in a compact leaflet form in English as well as the local language, and is considered an official publication of the respective national IP office. The guides can be accessed from the ARISE+ IPR site (under “Leaflets, brochures and booklets”), or by clicking on the links below: Cambodia: English | Khmer Indonesia: English | Bahasa Indonesia Thailand: English | Thai Vietnam: English | Vietnamese

As Vietnam continues to fight the latest wave of the Covid-19 pandemic with strict social distancing measures, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) has issued Notice No. 7581/TB-SHTT dated August 2, 2021 (Notice 7581), extending certain deadlines for IP applicants. The contents of Notice 7581 are similar to those found in Notice 5277 issued in March 2020 during the first wave of the pandemic. Specifically, Notice 7581 reads as follows: All procedures related to procedures to establish industrial property rights (priority claims, supplementation of documents, responses to the IP Office’s decisions/notifications, renewal and extension of the validity of protection titles, payment of fees and charges, and filing of appeal petitions) falling due during the period from June 30, 2021, to the end of August 31, 2021, will automatically be extended to the end of September 30, 2021. For other cases, if an applicant is still affected by the Covid-19 epidemic with regard to the implementation of its rights and obligations in the procedures for establishing rights to industrial property objects at the IP Office, such applicant may request [the IP Office] to apply the clauses on objective obstacles and force majeure as set out in Points 9.4 and 9.5 of Circular No. 01/2007/TT-BKHCN, as amended and supplemented by Circular No. 16/2016/TT-BKHCN. Observations on the Content of Notice 7581 As with last year’s Notice 5277, it is worth noting that the wording of Notice 7581 covers only the procedures to “establish industrial property rights,” rather than all aspects of industrial property rights. Further, it could be understood that it provides a closed list of industrial property procedures that can enjoy this grace period, and that the deadline extensions would apply only to the specific items listed. Thus, it is uncertain if the deadline extension to September 30, 2021,